Spotlight: The Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA)Forrest Westall, UNRBAPam Hemminger, UNRBADon O’Toole, City of DurhamKenny Waldroup, City of RaleighAlix Matos, Cardno
September 2014
Introduction to the SessionForrest Westall
Panel Members
> Forrest Westall, Executive Director of the UNRBA
> Pam Hemminger, UNRBA Chair, Orange County Representative
> Don O’Toole, Senior Assistant City Attorney, City of Durham
> Kenny Waldroup, Assistant Public Utilities Director, City of Raleigh
> Alix Matos, Cardno
The Challenges of Falls Lake In a Nutshell> Controversial Corps of Engineers reservoir
> Primary source for public water for one jurisdiction
> Concerns about water quality
> Chlorophyll-a water quality impairment
> Legislative action to require nutrient management
> Very restrictive nutrient reduction requirements
> Reductions required for existing development
> Expensive Stage I requirements
> Costly Stage II requirements
> Stage I (2011- 2021)• Achieve standards in lower lake by 2021• Initial reductions watershed wide• Reduce loading by 20% for TN and 40% for TP • New development requirements implemented in 2012
> Stage II (2021 – 2036) • Achieve standards in entire lake by 2041• Additional reduction in upper watershed• Reduce loading by 40% for TN and 77% for TP • Continue new development requirements
Nutrient Reduction Requirements
Panel Presentation Topics
> Review the history of Falls Lake and the emergence of critical water resource issues affecting the whole watershed
> Summarize the development of the Consensus Principles
> Highlight the reconfiguration of the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA)
> Examine the roles of adaptive management and the application of water quality science in examining the regulatory framework developed for Falls Lake
> Describe the political and public policy environment in North Carolina and its potential effects on the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
The Falls Lake Watershed
History of the Issues and the Consensus PrincipalsDon O’TooleKenny Waldroup
The Upper Neuse Facts
13%1%
27%25%
17%17%
Percent of watershed Wake
Franklin
Durham
Orange
Granville
Person
> 770 square miles> 6 counties> 8 municipalities> 6 public drinking water
systems > 9 water supply
reservoirs
Upper Neuse Land Cover
14%
58%
24%
3%1
%
Land Cover
Developed Forest
Pasture/ Crops Water
Wetlands
North Carolina’s water quality standard for Chlorophyll-a is 40 ug/l. This graphic shows water quality violations
identified in 2005-2007.
The Memorandum of Agreement known as the “Consensus Principles”
Why is this effort important to Raleigh?
Why is this effort important to Durham?
Direct Costs Responsible Party Stage I Stage II
WWTP City of Durham $40 million $80 million - $320 million
Existing development City of Durham $45 million $645 million ???
New Development Developers $45 million $1 billion (watershed)
Total Both $130 million $1 billion - $2 billion
The Re-Focus of the UNRBAPam Hemminger
A Brief History of the UNRBA
> Formed in 1996 due to continued concerns about the future water quality of Falls Lake
> Initial focus was information development and general study of the Lake and its watershed
> The organization shifted goals and objectives following the adoption of the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy and the passage of the Falls Lake Rules in 2010
> Ongoing focus to assist member jurisdictions with Strategy implementation and reexamine the Stage II Rules
Structure of the Organization
> Members• 6 counties (Wake, Orange, Durham, Person, Granville, and
Franklin)• 7 municipalities (Raleigh, Wake Forest, Durham, Hillsborough,
Creedmoor, Stem, and Butner)
> Board of Directors• Each member government has a Director and alternate
> Executive Director—critically important
> Path Forward Committee—comprised of member experts
The Association is organized and shall operate exclusively as a non-profit corporation to assist its member local governments in their efforts to jointly address issues of concern to the member local governments relating to water quality and waste water management in the Upper Neuse River Basin and the Falls Lake Watershed.
The Stated Purpose of the UNRBA, 2011 By-Laws
What Makes the UNRBA Different?
> Collaboration of the regulated community and end user of the water
> The consolidation and coordination of membership response to a demanding regulatory framework
> Differing political views of regulation (rural versus suburban versus urban)
> Members willing to focus on mutual goals and not differences due to the unprecedented nutrient control regulatory requirements
The Path Forward: Increasing the Effectiveness of the UNRBA in the Era of the Falls Lake Rules
Key Actions in Successfully Changing the Focus of the UNRBA
> Achieving agreement within the membership on the new direction
> Significant dues increases
> Creation of a “Path Forward” Committee
> Retention of water resources consulting firm to guide the re-examination process
> Retention of an Executive Director
UNRBA Contracts with Cardno
> 2012 Re-examination Strategy• $200K
> 2013 Monitoring Program Development• $300K
> 2014+ Monitoring Program Implementation• $800K per year for 4 to 5 years
> 2013 Nutrient Credit Project• $350K
Technical Support for the Goals of the UNRBAAlix Matos, PE
• Explored regulatory options
• Developed monitoring program
• Expand the toolbox
Assessed existing
information
Linked water quality to
designated uses
Assessed feasibility of
Stage II
UNRBA Re-examination Strategy for Stage II
Assessed Existing Information
> Agencies predicted the upper lake would be highly eutrophic
> Benefits of the lake were assumed to outweigh the risk of eutrophic conditions
> Water quality improves steadily from the upper to lower end of the lake
> Natural lake processes protect downstream waters
Linked Water Quality to Designated Uses
Cost Benefit Analysis of Stage II
> Used the State’s Fiscal Analysis to estimate costs
> Accounts for benefits • Increased recreational use• Reduced chemical costs for
water treatment
> Additional potential benefits• Compliance with future
SDWA standards• Avoided costs of WTP
upgrades
Costs = $1 billion
Benefits = $7.5 million
Potential Regulatory Options
> Use attainability analysis• Naturally occurring
conditions or hydrologic modification
• Significant and widespread social and economic impacts
> Variance
> Site specific criteria
40, 77 35, 70 30, 60 25, 50 20, 40 15, 30 10, 20 5, 10 0,00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent Reduction (TN, TP)
An
nu
al I
mp
lem
enta
tio
n C
ost
s ($
mil
lio
n)
Little Im-pact
Mid-range Im-pact
Large Impact
Impact categories are based on the USEPA Municipal Preliminary Screener and represent the impact to households in the watershed.
Compliance Cannot Be Achieved with Existing Technology
> None of the existing BMPs can achieve the required TP reductions
> Existing development is most severely challenged
BMP Nutrient Removal Efficiency for Each BMP Type
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Stormwater Wetlands 40% 40%
Bioretention 35% 45%
Infiltration Devices 30% 35%
Buffer Restoration 30% 35%
Grassed Swales 20% 20%
Stage II Requirement 40% 77%
Nutrient Credit Project
> Contributors/Partners• $300,000 contributed by
the UNRBA• $50,000 grant from the
State
> Develop nutrient credits for measures that currently do not have State approved credits
> Develop a tool that local governments can use to calculate credits
Analyses• Identify data gaps• Statistical models
Optimization• Parameters• Frequencies• Locations
Adaptations• Test models• Revise
program
Re-examination• Update lake
model• Recalculate
loading targets• Support regulatory
options
Adaptive Monitoring Program(~$800,000 per year)
Moving Forward in the Face of Regulatory ChallengesForrest Westall
A Personal Perspective of the UNRBA: Why Get Involved?
> Water quality management focused
> “Bleeding edge” of technology
> High economic stakes
> Respect all members views
> Adaptive management
UNRBA is Moving Forward
> Committed to achieving Stage I
> Dues from $ 120,000 in 2011 to over $ 800,000 in FY 2015
> Credit development project $ 300,000
> Monitoring program $ 800,000 / yr for 4 to 5 years
> New Development in place 2012
> WWTP upgrades for Stage I are near completion
> Falls Lake Watershed versus Jordan Lake Watershed
Balancing Ecological Science and Effective Public Policy
> Southern Piedmont man-made reservoir
> Strategy is aimed at meeting Chlorophyll-a standards
> Other water quality concerns (TOC and water treatment)
> Costs of strategy versus water quality benefits
> Regulatory and legal options
> Reluctant regulatory agencies
> Member interests may diverge in the future
2021-?Pursue regulatory options as needed
2019/2020Revise lake model and recalculate reduction goals
2014/2018-19Collect monitoring data
2013/2014Develop monitoring plan to support re-examination and obtain DWR approval
2012/2013UNRBA contracted work to develop a strategy for the re-examination process
2011UNRBA decides to initiate a re-examination of Stage II
2010Falls Lake Strategy is passed Consensus Principles adopted
These End Points Cannot be Achieved Unless the UNRBA can:
> Maintain cooperative relationships
> Keep the members at the table
> Provide compelling information to support the decisions of the organization
> Deal effectively with changing political climate
> Meet the needs of a diverse membership
> Promote a cooperative and flexible State and Federal response to the science that the UNRBA is developing
Top Related